DHANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P.No. 2537/1995 (Dhansingh v. State of M.P. and others), petitioner Dhansingh was convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC, and 323/149 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. R. I. for 3 years and R.I. for six months respectively, the sentences to run concurrently in Sessions Trial No. 105/84 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh on 25-9-86. On completion of more than five years, the petitioner submitted his application for release on probation, duly signed by his guardian. According to the petitioner, the Probation Officer, Superintendent of Police Damoh and the District Magistrate, Damoh recommended his case for release but the probation Board rejected his case by its order dated 17-4-95. By the petition, the petitioner submits that his case was wrongly rejected by the Board and the extreneous material is taken into consideration. The respondents in their return have contended that after considering the antecedents and the totality of the circumstances, the Board was of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on licence, rightly rejected the application of the petitioner.

(2.) In W. P. 426 of 1997 (Ashok Kumar Chourasia), petitioner has been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for life in Sessions Trial Nos. 57/82, 82/82 and 83/82 on 12-1-84 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. On completion of more than five years, he filled up his probation form duly signed by his guardian. His case was recommended by the Probation Officer, S. P. and District Magistrate, but the Probation Board illegally rejected his case. According to him, he had filed M.P.No. 2519/92 challenging the earlier order of the Board, wherein the order of the State Government was quashed and it was directed that his case be reconsidered within a period of six months and if the case remains undecided, he be released on bail. Petitioner was thereafter released on bail on 17-9-93. The case of the petitioner was meanwhile rejected on 5-7-93, therefore, he had filed M.P.No. 137/94. By order dated 9-12-94 in M.P.No. 137/94 this Court directed that the State Government shall dispose of the petitioner's case in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner submits that his case has been rejected by the Probation Board but the State has not confirmed the order of the Probation Board, therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the case of the petitioner and they be also directed not to take the petitioner in custody. In the present case no return has been filed. It does not appear from the records that the petitioner's case has been disposed of by the probation Board or the State Government. As the order dated 9-12-94 takes full care of the petitioner's case, no further orders in this petition are needed. This W.P. No. 426/97 is disposed of. If the petitioner's case is rejected then he shall be free to challenge the order passed by the appropriate authority but before doing so, he shall surrender in accordance with the order under which he has been released.

(3.) In W.P.No. 4928/96 (Sanjay Gupta) petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for life by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 111/89 on 23/190. According to him on completion of more than five years, he filled up his probation form duly signed by his guardian. The Probation Officer, S. P. and District Magistrate recommended his case for release. According to the petitioner, the report of the probation officer clearly stated that the opposite party or the rivals were not residing in the locality of Junnardeo where the incident took place and as the prosecution witnesses Rajendra and Ramesh Rai had no objection to release on probation he could be released. The Probation Board on 26-8-96 rejected the petitioner's case. The petitioner submits that the order dated 26-8-96 is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed. The respondents in their return have submitted that the authorities did make recommendations in favour of the petitioner but the probation Board after considering the case of the petitioner was of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. According to the respondents, they had taken into consideration, the antecedents of the petitioner and the manner in which the offence was committed. According to them, the order does not suffer with any infirmity.